dark light

balrog

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: New big RJ-s #589319
    balrog
    Participant

    The CSeries is still in development. They’ve made some wing changes, materials changes and have an engine agreement. They are looking for board aproval in Jan or Feb (again). Bombardier is also working on stretched CRJ900 and Q400.

    in reply to: What jet did your country start off with? #2513031
    balrog
    Participant

    Canada (I think)
    1945 – Meteor (4 for trials)
    1948 – Vampire
    1950 – Sabre
    1951 – T-33
    1953 – CF-100 Canuck
    1953 – Comet
    1955 – Banshee

    in reply to: Python 5 For USAF ?? #1805749
    balrog
    Participant

    I would guess it’s one or more of several reasons.
    1/ They want to see how it performes so they can defeat it with tech or tactics because of python sales technology transfer to 3rd parties. (China?)
    2/ They want to see how it performs so they can defeat it because it is representative of a foreign hi tech OBS WVR missle so it could represent several different designs.
    3/ They want to have a back up to the AIM-9X if there is a problem with that missile during wartime. (production problem, technical problem, countermeasure problem.)

    in reply to: your country armed forces your way #2565818
    balrog
    Participant

    Canada.
    35 X F-22 – NORAD, silver bullit.
    65 X F-35stovl – Expeditionary.
    50 X Neuron UCAV.
    15 X P-8 – patrol, recce, use as a persistant bomber.
    15 X Mariner UAV.
    6 X 737AEW.
    15 X common ISTAR UAV platform.
    8 X A330 MRTT
    6 X C-17
    20 X A400 – 6 with refueling pods.
    10 X tactical transport (nothing out there inspires me).
    15 X Be-200 – SAR, EEC patrol, Water bomber.
    35 X Attack helicopter.
    35 X NH-90nfh
    10 X NH-90 csar
    50 X NH-90tth
    30 X CH-47F.

    in reply to: Su-27KUB new design!? #2566495
    balrog
    Participant

    I’ve seen that same drawing and image refered to as the Su-35BM. The next generation stealthy Flanker. A major redesign like that wouldn’t make sense with new 5th gen aircraft coming out, but then again, we have the super-bug.

    in reply to: Canadian Forces CH-149 (EH-101) Cormorant crash #2566412
    balrog
    Participant

    Is civilan SAR really a military mission? Why not put civilian SAR up to bid with civilian contractors? Even the RAF has finally come around to this way of thinking.

    I personally think they should do this. Canada has been using private contractors for a long time on EEC patrol and NFTC among others. This will of course would take some time to implement so the cormorants would have to keep at it.

    in reply to: Canadian Forces CH-149 (EH-101) Cormorant crash #2566467
    balrog
    Participant

    At this point, I question the wisdom of retaining a military SAR tasking for these helicopters. The USCG can maintain effectiveness while operating in small detachments, but I’m not sure the same can be said about Canadian Forces.

    The Harper government should immediately stand-down the entire CH-149 fleet, and conduct a review of procedures and the conduct of aircrews. The ultimate solution might be to operate all CH-149s from a single location, as a single squadron.

    The Canadian Forces have been operating detachments of all kinds of aircraft for many years. CF188, CH113, CT133, CH124, CH146, CC115 and just about every other type thats been in service if they’ve gone on any overseas deployment (NATO, UN). I would imagine experience with this type of operations isn’t the problem. The DND can’t do anything else with a country as huge as Canada and very limited aircraft resources.

    The government can’t immediately stand-down the fleet because there isn’t anything in place to take over. The SAR squadrons are kept very busy. Operating the CH149’s from a single location (as a SAR asset) is of course impossible logistically given the size of Canada.

    in reply to: Boeing reveals final 787 design #611684
    balrog
    Participant

    My opinion is that all the earlier 787 drawings were just marketing to get everybody exited about the futuristic design. When I was at the Avalon trade show the big image on the wall of the fuselage cross section was all distorted so that it was wider than it was tall making it seem huge inside. I remember wondering if anybody actually fell for it. I’m sure most big companies do this to some degree or other.
    When I first saw the new image my instant thought was 767ng ala 737ng with new wing and engines as well as cosmetics to the rest of the aircraft. But they are using all kinds of advanced manufacturing techniques so I imagine they’d go with a totally new fuselage cross section as well as everything else.

    in reply to: Australian JSF, what's going wrong? #2633529
    balrog
    Participant

    I may have posted this already but I read in the local Australian aviation mag that there may be a deal where Canada takes Australias F18’s, paying for the current upgrade (Canada’s upgraded F18’s are almost identicle) and Australia goes for a bunch of F18E/f’s to replace the F18’s and F111’s. Then in around 2012ish they pass the F18E’s on to Canada and finally get their F35’s. It’s a bit convoluted but it saves both countries money while buying Intrim capability. I’m a Canadian living in Australia and as much as I’d like both Australia and Canada to buy some flashy new jets, it does make some sense because Canada is only upgrading 80 of its 120 F18s which was a number picked completely arbitrarily without actually researching what was needed. A senate report even said Canada needed more combat aircraft.
    It’s all just politics.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)